SADHNA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.

(2.) VIDE office report dated 17.3.2015, opposite party No.2 has been personally served, service of notice on opposite party No.2 is held sufficient. He has not filed any counter affidavit and none is present for him.

(3.) THE instant criminal revision has been filed challenging the validity of the orders dated 25th February, 2014 and 5th September, 2014 passed by the special chief judicial magistrate, Allahabad in complaint case No.2385 of 2012 (Ganga Ram Nishad Vs.Jagdish Prasad Nishad and others).